Trump Visit, National Guard Responds To Climate Change, Racism And Children’s Health
KPBS Midday Edition / September 18, 2019
President Trump is met with protesters and supporters as he visits San Diego and the border wall near Tijuana as part of a fundraising tour across California. Also, the federal government’s plan to end California’s mileage standards is drawing criticism, how heightened wildfire risk is altering the work of California’s National Guard, the UN Secretary General is urging public pressure to address the emergency of climate change, how racism impacts children’s health and Neil Young is vindicated as Amazon debuts its high-quality music streaming service.
Speaker 1: 00:00 President. Donald Trump is on a fundraising swing through California and he's in San Diego today. A sold out fundraising luncheon is taking place at the u s grant hotel. I spoke with KPBS reporter Matt Hoffman while he awaited the arrival of president Trump. Matt. Hello. How are you?
Speaker 2: 00:19 Good morning. How are you doing?
Speaker 1: 00:20 What's the scene like where you are and where are you?
Speaker 2: 00:24 Yeah, so right now we're right next to the U S Grant Hotel right by Horton Plaza. And there's a lot of people out here right now. Lots of pro Trump protesters, but a lot more anti Trump protesters. Uh, there's actually a, the infamous giant, uh, baby Trump balloon, uh, floating right above the street here next to the u s grant hotel. But a lot of people out here protesting, there was actually just some anti-vaxxer protesters that came out, which caused a pretty big stir. A pretty quiet though. Just some shouting back and forth. There's kind of Trump protester Trump supporters on one side and anti Trumpers on the other side.
Speaker 1: 00:58 How about, how big is the crowd out there?
Speaker 2: 01:02 Um, you know, I'm not an official guesstimate here, but I would say there's probably three, 300 people out here, three, 400 people.
Speaker 1: 01:09 Now what can you tell us about the president's visit to California so far and about this fundraiser at the u s grant?
Speaker 2: 01:18 Yes. So He's been in other places in California and then he's going to be coming here today. He's going to be visiting the border later. But first he has this fundraiser at the u s grant hotel. From what we've been told, it's sold out and there was a long line of cars to get in there this morning. A really nice cars too. I mean, we're talking very expensive cars. People we talked to said that they believed that the donors are, some of the people who don't support the president say that they believed that the donors are worse than the president because they're paying these thousands of dollars to get the access to him. And that's what's, uh, corrupt with the political system out here. Um, but a lot of people going, we know that we know at least a few people who are going, oh, we saw Carl de Myo, former San Diego city councilman also running for Congress, running for Dunkin Hunter seat. Uh, we saw a, we know elk alcohol. Mayor Bill Wells will be attending this fundraiser as well as former congressman Darrell Eissa
Speaker 1: 02:09 is mayor Kevin Faulkner meeting with the president.
Speaker 2: 02:13 You know, I reached out to his people and I did not hear back, but I saw, um, in other reports like the Union Tribune that he would not be attending. Uh, also supervisor Kristin gas bar who has made a trip to the White House. Uh, we reached out to her to see if she would be attending. She is not attending also.
Speaker 1: 02:27 Now this is a fundraising swing through California. Do we know how much money a is expected to be raised?
Speaker 2: 02:35 Yeah. You know, that there's, there's a few reports out there. I mean, people are saying that $15 million total will be raised in California. And a lot of people say, you know, San Diego doesn't have a lot of Trump supporters, but he's expected to raise $4 million here. So that's quite a bit of money. Uh, some of the people that we talked to said that they heard the tickets were going around $2,800 a seat to potentially way, way more than that.
Speaker 1: 02:57 Now I read that the president is also expected to visit the border. There's after noon. Do we know if that's true and do we know what he's intending to do there?
Speaker 2: 03:08 Yes. So the president is expected to visit a portion of the border, um, near Oh, Oti Mesa. Uh, I believe, and uh, I heard that he might be meeting with, um, like the chiefs of the chief of customs and border protection, the acting chief Kevin [inaudible]. Um, so I don't know if that's true or not, but I heard that he might be meeting with him. I saw some reports on that I'll be at, but it sounds like he's going to be going to the border and some of these protesters hearsay that they plan to follow him.
Speaker 1: 03:31 Oh, the precedent, uh, lost of course, the state of California by 30 points in 2016. You're seeing a lot of people there who are standing there supporting him and paying a lot of money to see him today. What does his support look like today across the state?
Speaker 2: 03:48 So a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that only 32% of California adults approve of Trump's job performance. But keep that in mind. That poll also found 82% of Republicans do approve of him. So he's very strong with the Republican Party. It seems like, obviously, like I said, there's a lot more anti-Trump protesters out here than there are protests, pro Trump protesters. Um, and there's been some little clashes. They kind of drift back and forth to the other side and there are some yelling and shouting going back and forth. But it's pretty civil out here.
Speaker 1: 04:20 Okay. So final question to you, Matt. I know you have lots to do while you're there, down there covering the president's visit, but the Trump administration, you know, now it's really a fraught time for him to visit California. He's got a legal battle with California over the administration's immigration policies. He's waiting on the state's homelessness crisis recently and today he revoked California's higher auto emission standards, which we're going to be talking about next on the program, on this fundraising swing. How is he being received by California's leaders?
Speaker 2: 04:54 Right. Well, I did get a statement from supervisor Nathan Fletcher. I'm saying that the president, um, in regards to those, um, auto manufacturing industry, he says that the president is not only attacking California's environmental standards, but also the auto manufacturing industry that supports our effort. Um, I heard that council member Chris Ward from the San Diego City Council is supposed to be here protesting, um, against the president. So that's all we know. That's all I know, at least on the local level.
Speaker 1: 05:19 And I have been speaking with KPBS reporter Matt Hoffman as he is standing near the u s Grand Hotel where president Trump is having a fundraising luncheon. Thank you so much, Matt.
Speaker 2: 05:32 Thanks, Maureen.
Speaker 3: 05:36 [inaudible].
Speaker 1: 00:00 As expected, the Trump administration is making good on a threat to revoke California's ability to set its own auto emissions standards. The president announced the news in a tweet this morning, joining us to talk about what the revocation of California's EPA waiver means is Mark Jacobson, an economics professor at Ucs d specializing in environmental policy. Mark, welcome. Thank you. So what does this action mean for California? Do our current emission standards just go away?
Speaker 2: 00:29 Well, practically a, this is going to set up a legal battle, um, but if the, the revocation of the waiver is, is, um, uh, holds up in the courts, uh, yes, it means that California will no longer be able to have cleaner cars, uh, than the rest of the country. And, uh, as you may know, California is joined by 13 other states, uh, in, in sort of using this waiver that is existed. Uh, so there's, it's about one third of the auto market that's cleaner and another two thirds that have, have a, a dirty or standards on, on cars. Um, and it's, it's, it will mean big changes. It's really quite a stunning, uh, development.
Speaker 1: 01:05 All right. And a news conference in Sacramento this morning, governor Newsome, along with Attorney General Javier Bissera and California Air Resources Board Chair, Mary Nichols promised legal action against the federal government. What chance do you think that has a way of succeeding?
Speaker 2: 01:21 Uh, I've, I've heard various estimates from friends who are environmental lawyers. It's a 50, 50. It really hinges on the, um, the rationale. So it sort of will it hold up in the courts? Well, the reasoning behind doing this, uh, hold up in the courts, which is fundamentally economic in nature.
Speaker 1: 01:39 And at this morning's news conference, that Attorney General Bissera pointed out that California's emissions standards aren't just beneficial to California. Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 3: 01:48 California standards have encouraged the development of critical emissions control technologies, many of which have been deployed nationally, not just in our state. Some of California's standards alone led to stronger standards from the EPA itself. All of this ultimately leading to cleaner cars and cleaner air for all Americans.
Speaker 1: 02:10 So, since California is standards, as he said, their influence auto emissions policy nationwide, do you think that has something to do with the administration's action?
Speaker 2: 02:20 Uh, yes and no. So, so there's the administrations sort of justification or economic justification for this is that we won't need to make so many different models of cars anymore. So right now we have hybrid cars and electric cars and all sorts of smaller, cleaner cars that are sold mostly in California and the other 13 states. And then we have larger, uh, vehicles that consume a lot more gasoline and make more pollution that are sold in the rest of the country. And I think the idea is that there could be savings if car companies didn't have to make so many different kinds of cars. The flip side of that, of course, is that there's an advantage. And I think that's what he was saying there is that, um, if you learn how to make cars because California or other countries, in fact the u s is nowhere near the largest auto market in the world, right?
Speaker 2: 03:05 So these, these companies are thinking about selling vehicles abroad as well. Um, uh, and, and lots of places around the world. They're making stricter standards. And so, so there need to be sort of a test bed for that. And if, if California and its, its um, partner states a value clean air for health reasons and just just sort of quality of life and are willing to, uh, to pay for these cleaner models than, than the auto makers, uh, in some sense would be happy to do that. And I think there, there was a deal in fact struck between the auto makers in California, um, a month or two ago, uh, to do just that.
Speaker 1: 03:38 Hmm. Now governor Newsome made it clear this morning what he thinks is behind the administration's move. Let's take a listen to that. This was a, a move demonstrable move cert power and dominance, aggressive move against the state a few days before UN climate week. What do you think of the governors contention that this is nothing more than a power play?
Speaker 2: 04:01 Oh, there's certainly been a lot of opinions expressed this morning in the newspapers that this is, yes, a power play or a spy tr. Uh, and it's very unusual, uh, frankly, to have an environmental rule that's actually binding in the other direction, right? Normally we think of environmental rules as making industry and, uh, uh, population have cleaner air or water than they would like. Uh, here we have an a, a change to environmental rules that's, that's causing us and the industry to make dirtier vehicles and we would like and, and sort of breathe dirtier air and contribute more to climate change and so on. And so it's really, uh, it's, it's in the opposite direction from what we usually see. Uh, and there's, there's a lot of old economics that suggests very strongly that that market forces and the benefits of market forces only work when people are in some sense allowed to buy what they want.
Speaker 2: 04:54 And in, in this sense, um, you know, with this rule is doing, is saying here we have a group of people, a community, a state, several states who want to buy cleaner cars. Uh, and that's, that's no longer going to be possible, or at least the states won't be allowed to encourage that, uh, using policy meetings, right. Individuals, of course, will still be able to buy a cleaner cars. And I think that's an incidentally one of the strongest cases against, uh, this move is that, remember the, the, the rationale that's, that's coming from Washington is this is an economic thing. This is going to make it cheaper for car companies to make cars cause they don't have to make so many different models and so they're going to sell lots more cars, jobs were promised and so on. Right. And I just, I think that, uh, from, from kind of everything I've seen, we haven't done this studies because it hasn't been needed before, but, uh, there'll be some demand now to really understand what it is that, that causes car companies to make lots of different models.
Speaker 2: 05:47 And I think a lot of that's driven by individual demand. And so even if California's not allowed to, uh, encourage the sale of electric cars, for example, I think the car are still gonna make electric cars. They're still gonna make hybrid cars. Um, they just won't sell as many of them. But this, this notion that they're going to cancel hybrids altogether and council electrics altogether and therefore save a lot of money by not having to make different types. I'm not sure how well that that holds up. I've been speaking with Mark Jacobson, an economics professor at UC SD, specializing in environmental policy marks. Thank mark. Thank you so much for your insight. Thanks very much for having me.
Speaker 4: 06:31 [inaudible].
Speaker 1: 00:00 We continue our series covering climate now on midday edition and this week, KPBS has been joining hundreds of news organizations from across the globe to bring home the realities of a warming planet. Over the past decade, the California Army National Guard has been spending more money and sending more people to fight wildfires. KPBS military reporter Steve Walsh went out with major Robert Langston who was finding the climate changes among the factors causing his civilian job to merge with his guard duty
Speaker 2: 00:32 major. Robert Langston is originally from Puerto Rico. He's lived in San Diego for 12 years to be near his civilian job with the forestry service inside the Cleveland National Forest. In August, he was in the Sierra Nevada mountains near Fresno, part of a guard task force. At times it feels like fire is all around him. Like the 2013 chariot fire, which came close to where his family lives in Pine Valley.
Speaker 3: 00:56 It's exhausting work. Uh, you're working therefore, but, but at some point and you see, you realize, oh, this fire is going to get close to where I work or where I live. And, and you know, just in your back of your mind, only you're worried about working, but you're worried about your families. And now, okay, so now I gotta start worrying my family. Most of the polices that we fight fire, we don't have signal. So it's a lot of, you know, fun and all over, you know, firefighters all over dead California. I mean, they is the same all the time. You, you're working in, but you've got to work out your family.
Speaker 2: 01:25 The Cherry had fire burned through 7,000 acres east of San Diego over the years. Langston has helped fight several fires as an assistant fire engine operator this year. He's leaving operation rattlesnakes,
Speaker 4: 01:39 [inaudible],
Speaker 5: 01:39 California National Guard effort to clear the brush that fuels fires.
Speaker 4: 01:44 Right.
Speaker 3: 01:44 The level of support has been increasing. We are providing more support to, uh, especially while on fire. So from a firefighter perspective, I mean, you know, for whatever reason, yeah. Fires are getting more and more intense. Yeah.
Speaker 2: 01:56 In fiscal year 2013 the California national guard build the state and federal governments less than $6 million to send mainly guard air crews to fight fires. So far this year, the California Guard has received over $34 million.
Speaker 5: 02:11 Most of that money is for personnel troops on the ground to fight alongside cal fire
Speaker 4: 02:19 [inaudible]
Speaker 5: 02:19 for the first time, guard members are working year round to prevent fires. Major Langston, it has a task force. The 100 guardsman we're spending the year clearing brush and felling dead trees, including in this.
Speaker 2: 02:30 Sierra is outside of Fresno.
Speaker 4: 02:31 No,
Speaker 2: 02:36 the Meza specialist with the Army National Guard grew up not too far away from these mountains.
Speaker 5: 02:41 I think that in the past couple of years the fires have just been getting worse and worse and this has been needed for a long time and the fact that they're, they're putting us into play is, is something that's been needed for a while.
Speaker 2: 02:52 After a year of devastating wildfires, California governor Gavin Newsome called up the guard to help build these around the state. The 2018 campfire killed 86 people and destroyed more than 13,000 homes, most in the town of Paradise, Ramen, Ramen auth. And a professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography says the guard can expect the wildfire risk associated with climate change to increase.
Speaker 6: 03:17 So the fire season is expanding because the planet is getting warmer. What was spring before is becoming like summer temperatures, right? And since it's happening throughout the year, the, the trees are drying out. So when the fire happens, it's preds
Speaker 5: 03:43 major Langston oversees his national guard crew. The crew was looking for so-called widowmakers dead limbs that could drop on firefighters felling dead trees that can transfer the fire to the tree tops, which are called the forest canopy. And out of the reach of firefighters on the ground
Speaker 3: 04:00 or a human being can only fight a fire, a certain amount of flame height. I mean, when you get into canopy fires, I mean, it's an amazing spectacle because sometimes you can see the canopy burning while under the trees. There's no, there's no ground fire and is right. A rapid rate of spread. I mean, and he's intense. You know,
Speaker 5: 04:16 critics question the practicality of building firebreaks around the state saying they would not have stopped a fast moving fire like the inferno that decimated paradise. Regardless, it's safe to bet that climate change means guard troops will continue to be pressed into new roles. Steve Walsh KPBS News,
Speaker 7: 04:35 aside from responding to climate change driven disasters, the u s armed forces will also be directly impacted by climate change. Joining us by Skype to discuss how climate change will affect the u s military is John Congar, director of the center for climate and security. And Jon, welcome to the program. Thanks for having me. What are some of the key areas where a changing climate may impact military operations? Well, uh, I think that there's several. One is we can talk about infrastructure. Uh, the climate change has a direct impact on dod infrastructure, which is in a whole host of, uh, different climate zones. Uh, money, uh, installations on the coast will be affected by sea level rise and flooding. Uh, others may be affected by drought and wildfire. We've had to evacuate bases because of hurricanes and extreme weather because of flooding. And because of wildfire.
Speaker 7: 05:30 And so that's one piece of the puzzle. Another is the fact that, uh, we'll have new missions as a result of climate change. The Arctic ice is melting, and so that gives the an entirely new ocean to patrol. Climate change can create instability in parts of the world that were at least a little bit stable and create situations where our forces will have to go to deploy. Uh, so the range of impacts from climate change is vast. You're talk about the infrastructure, the military infrastructure threatened a case in point camp lose June in North Carolinas is still struggling to recover from flooding from a hurricane last year. Is there any add estimate as to how many other military installations might be threatened in a similar fashion? Well, it's hard to predict in any given year, which base is going to be affected by extreme weather. But in the last year alone, uh, you had camp last June that took about three and a half billion dollars worth of damage.
Speaker 7: 06:32 You had Tyndall air force base, which is going to cost, which was nearly leveled by a hurricane and it's gonna cost about $5 billion to recover, uh, record flooding in Nebraska affected off at air force base and that's going to cost another billion dollars to recover it. And that was all just in the last year. How about the type of equipment training and gear military personnel may need if, let's say day they're deployed to deserts that are hotter than ever or areas of the world facing more severe storms and flooding is the military planning for that. So I think that it's important to recognize that we have had a history of deploying to different climate zones, whether it's in the jungle, in Vietnam or in the desert of Iraq. The troops adapt their equipment to the scenario they're going to go to. And that is less about climate changes as much as climate and in various parts of the world you might deploy too.
Speaker 7: 07:31 But in those places, if you hit extremes and in particular, you know, the Middle East and the high temperatures that that are hitting there, that has an impact on equipment, planes do not fly as well when, when it is hot and humid. We've seen that in Phoenix where planes were, flights had to get canceled because of the high heat. That effect certainly impacts operations in the Middle East. Now it's, it's seems as you went down the key areas where climate change could impact military operations, that there's also the anticipation that climate change will be the cause of future conflicts. Yes. And I think that it's important to recognize that climate change affects stability and it is by definition something that disrupts any sort of stability that you have. And so as we see a water scarcity, food insecurity, uh, sea level rise, uh, on, in coastal areas, and there's a lot of people that live in coastal areas around the world.
Speaker 7: 08:31 This disrupts their norms and causes migration, causes a conflict over scarce resources. Violent extremist groups take advantage of this either to recruit, saying, hey, I have resources. Come and, and join me or to, uh, you know, impose themselves on vulnerable populations. Now the military is apparently responding to the need to prepare for climate change, but the Trump administration continues to downplay and reject the threat of climate change. How does that affect the military's preparations when the Albany wants to do something that your boss doesn't want you to do, but the military has a unique perspective in that they are completely focused on mission and they have continued to focus on mission and their ability to, to protect the country through multiple administrations. And so in the Obama administration, which wanted to emphasize climate change, the military said, yeah, well we'll do that. We'll, we'll come, we'll concern ourselves with emissions or, or that sort of thing.
Speaker 7: 09:36 But we're going to do it in the context of mission where we save energy or where we save costs. Um, and the emissions reductions would be a co-benefit cause they were focused on their mission. Well, this administration comes along and says, you know, you don't have to worry about climate change. Well then the military says, well, okay, I appreciate the fact that you aren't telling, you're not, you're telling us that we don't have to, but we're going to anyway because it affects our ability to do our mission. And so in some ways that they make the peaks smaller, uh, it is a more stable way forward as they focus not on politics or what their, how the political winds go, but on how they're going to be able to do their job in the future. That is clearly affected by climate change. And that's where their brain is at. I've been speaking with John Congar, director of the center for climate and security. John, thanks very much for speaking with us. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 4: 10:33 [inaudible].
Speaker 1: 00:00 Climate change is of course an international problem. In fact, the UN Secretary General Antonio Gutierrez calls it a global emergency for this week's covering climate series. Mark Phillips of CBS News and Mark Hurts Guard of the nation spoke with Secretary General Gutierrez. Here's that interview,
Speaker 2: 00:19 Mr Secretary General, thank you for making this time for the interview with the covering climate now consortium of news outlets around the world. You've been working very hard on the climate problem, calling it an emergency. People all over the world are scared, they want action, but you have called the special climate action summit next Monday because their governments are not delivering that action, at least not yet. What is the one thing that people listening to this interview right now can do to get their governments to lift their game, to act like this is the emergency that you say it is? Well, first the general public can mobilize
Speaker 3: 01:01 in different ways. Uh, we have seen the youth with the fantastic leadership in this regard. Uh, we see, uh, the civil society, the nongovernmental organizations, we see the business community cities, regions that more and more, uh, not only put pressure on their governments for climate action. And we have seen that already in elections in different parts of the world, namely in Europe in the last, uh, European elections. But they are also themselves assuming climate action. We see cities reducing emissions, we see businesses, um, uh, also reducing their emissions. We see asset managers divesting from coal or from fossil fuels. I see the whole of the society being more and more engaged in crime detection. And what I want is to have the whole of society putting pressure on government to make governments understand they need to run faster because we are losing the race. We're losing the races.
Speaker 3: 01:58 Why you call it an emergency, right? Yes. I mean, if you see the way, uh, uh, we, the multiplication, uh, of, uh, natural disasters each time more intense with more devastating consequences. I just came from The Bahamas. It is appalling to see what I've seen total destruction drought in Africa. That is not only a problem for the populations and the problem for their wellbeing and forcing people to move, it's also more and more something that supports conflict. And terrorism. CEO is a good example of that. You see glaciers melting, you see corals bleaching, you see the food chains being put into question. Um, and uh, clearly, uh, as we have a, the highest temperatures ever, July was the hottest months. Uh, however this five years will be the hottest five years in record. We see the rising level of the ocean that are taking place, the highest concentrations ever of CO2 in the atmosphere to go back three to 5 million years to the same levels of seal too.
Speaker 3: 03:00 And that the time water level was 10 to 20 meters higher than what it is today. So we are really dealing with a very dramatic threat, not only to the future of the planet but to the planet. Today. You say that you have to get people in government to listen to the arguments that you, that you make such as the one you just did. But you've also just listed a few minutes ago, a whole range of dire consequences that we're already seeing. Hottest years on record record rates of melting of polar ice caps, all of the other consequences, severe storms that this is three years after the Paris accords were agreed. Are you facing a situation of desperation now? Is that why you've had to call this conference? Because the Paris accords, there is no evidence at this point that they are actually producing the results that we all hoped they would.
Speaker 3: 03:49 I'm not desperate. I am hopeful because I see a lot of movement in societies and I see more and more pressure being put in relation to governments. If you look at the most recent poll in the United States, you will see that the overwhelming majority of American citizens now can see the climate change to be a serious threat and can see that the government needs to act inhalation to that government. And that is the reason the government, it's not acting. But that is the reason why I am hopeful. I mean governments always follow public opinion everywhere in the world sooner or later. And so we need to stay the course. We need to keep telling the truth to people and be confident that a political system, especially democratic policing systems will in the end sooner or later deliver according to the needs that the population fields do.
Speaker 3: 04:35 You still have hope of convincing the Trump administration of the what you would see as the error of its ways and its approach to climate change and in withdrawing from the Internet. Hope is the thing that too we should never lose but in any case I think there is a work to be done with the civil society, with the business community, with the assets owners, with the states, with the cities and that work is also producing results that are very important that the fact is though that even with the pledges for the diminishing of greenhouse gas production that that were made at Paris, much of none of that would bring the heating levels of the climate down to the desired 1.5% I think three, three degrees reskill increasing emissions. We are still increasing initials even after why we need to change the course to reverse the trend even after Paris, even after Paris.
Speaker 3: 05:29 And how much of a problem is it that is Washington's position? Are you hearing other countries say, well if they won't, why should we? No, I don't think that is the problem anymore. I think now, clearly, uh, and I was in Katovich it was a difficult moment as you know, to get Avicii was essential to implement the Paris agreement. And in the end it was possible to have everybody on board, including by the way, the United States delegation. My feeling is more and more that countries understand that they cannot wait for the neighbor. They need to act by themselves because the risk is a, is a global risk. It's not a risk for one country or another. So nobody is, in my opinion, able to escape. And so my feeling is that independently of what one country decides other countries will be able to more and more commit to the Paris agreement and to the increased ambition that we need for the Paris agreement to be a reality.
Speaker 3: 06:27 Simple question is Paris failed? Not Because, um, more and more countries are now taking measures that will reverse these trends. If you look at what happened in the European Union recently, only three countries opposed the um, the strategy to have carbon neutrality in 2050. And I believe that even that will be overcome. Uh, uh, if you look at, uh, all solar energies growing, uh, in countries like India or China, it's absolutely remarkable. If you see how even countries in the small island development states are themselves taking measures to reduce emissions, even if their contribution is ridiculous, you feel that there is a new wind devote that is blowing. So I think we are getting to the top and you'll start coming down soon.
Speaker 4: 07:20 Is it time to, if not give up, at least face the reality that these targets are not going to be met. There's no indication so far that the targets will be met and that the efforts of organizations like the UN should be more directed toward adapting to the world. We're more likely to face and if not give up at least lessen the effort and redirect it
Speaker 3: 07:42 both. We need to support adaptation and support, specially the cancers that are in the frontline of the negative impacts. But what the science tells us today is that these targets are still reachable, but that needs profound changes in the way we produce food in the way we power our economies, in the way we organize our cities, it, the way we produce energy. Um, and these is the kind of transformational changes that I feel are needed. And I feel that more and more people, companies, cities, and governments, uh, understanding that needs to be done.
Speaker 4: 08:22 This story is part of covering climate now a global collaboration of more than 250 news outlets to strengthen coverage of the climate story.
Speaker 1: 00:00 Given the recent incidents of racism at some area high schools, we asked the question, how does this affect the mental and physical health of students who are targeted, those who witness it and those who are taught the racist behavior. Joining me is Dr Kelsey Bradshaw, a clinical child psychologist in the child adolescent unit at Sharp Mesa Vista Hospital. Dr. Bradshaw, thanks for joining us. Thank you for having me. Can you talk to me about some of the impacts racism has on a child or adolescent mental health
Speaker 2: 00:30 [inaudible] well, there there's been several studies. Um, you know, this has been something that has been looked at in the field for, for quite some time. Um, and I think broadly speaking, we definitely see that children and adolescents and even adults who report having experienced some kind of racial discrimination, racism or even things like microaggressions, uh, do report, um, having higher likelihoods of, you know, depression, anxiety or just kind of, uh, poor wellbeing. Are there any physical impacts? Yeah, there's been studies that have looked at the physical impacts as well. And so things like birth weight, um, some studies have found, you know, instances of, uh, hypertension being higher and in some groups. And so, uh, certainly there, there's a multitude of, of various risks for health.
Speaker 1: 01:17 And how does, how is that connected? How has racism connected to hypertension for example? Mean? Talk to me about it.
Speaker 2: 01:23 Yeah, it's a little bit complicated in the sense that, you know, we would say there's, there's various factors, but, um, to try to simplify it, I guess, um, the way we might look at it is both in the terms of like social strata, um, and kind of where, uh, minorities might find themselves in their communities and the access they have, uh, as well as the stressors that might be imposed on them. So, um, if we think about, you know, more direct racism, you know, that's going to be a stressor for many individuals. But also there's been a lot of research that looks at, um, more subtle aspects of racism in terms of just people's biases or the messages, um, you know, that are kind of within our society. Um, it's this idea of, you know, microaggressions and, and some of the power differential between different ethnic groups. And so we would kind of assume that people from minority groups might be at a disadvantage in terms of supports or services and might be exposed to additional stressors. Uh, maybe perhaps based on that, uh, ethnic makeup.
Speaker 1: 02:24 And you touched on it in your previous response here, but how should parents start the conversation with their children to proactively stop and prevent racism too? [inaudible]
Speaker 2: 02:32 it's the responsibility of us all to be able to acknowledge that there are differences in individuals and really start to question and challenge the stereotypes that sometimes come about. So that way, um, just because people are exposed to certain things or negative, uh, ideologies that we can kind of be aware that, uh, those aren't always based in, uh, some form of reality that, uh, that just kind of as a carried on prejudice, being able to sit down and have that conversation, but also in inviting, you know, your child to be able to talk about their own experiences or the things that they notice. We know, for example, even that there can be kind of internalized racism, uh, from a young age just because of, uh, what, you know, our youth are exposed to and what is considered the majority versus the minority. Uh, so, you know, they, they kind of start to wonder and question about these things. So that's why we have to, I think, be proactive to kind of point these things out and, and discuss it. I've been speaking with Dr Kelsey Bradshaw's, a clinicals child psychologist and the child adolescent unit at Sharp Mesa Vista Hospital. Dr. Bradshaw, thanks so much for joining us. Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: 03:43 [inaudible].
Speaker 1: 00:00 One of the most famous musicians of our time, Neil young is praising Amazon for becoming the first large music streaming service to offer a high quality streaming option. Amazon announced its high fidelity digital audio service, Amazon Music HD. It became available yesterday young who is responsible for music hits including heart of goal than harvest set in a statement that Amazon offering a high quality streaming option quote will be the biggest thing to happen to music. Since the introduction of digital audio 40 years ago.
Speaker 2: 00:42 [inaudible]
Speaker 1: 00:44 joining me now is Phil Baker who coauthored a book with Neil Young. It's called to feel the music, a songwriter's mission to save high quality audio. Phil, welcome. Thank you. It's great to be here. Jane, now you say Neil young is to credit for Amazon now offering a high quality streaming option. Why do you think that is? Well, Neil has been an advocate for trying to improve the quality of music for decades and he and I worked together beginning in 2012 trying to come up with a solution for the, uh, for the mass market, not just for audio files. And he always felt that his fans deserve to hear things as good as he heard in the studio. And he was very concerned that the technology industry kept making music poorer and poorer quality in the name of convenience. So He's been lobbying, uh, are actively fighting the industry to do something about it.
Speaker 1: 01:43 And that's what caused us to write the book together. And then when Amazon finally announced that they had heard him and we're going to create a new streaming service that did not compress the music, it was sort of a vindication of everything he's been fighting for for the last 30, 40 years. And you know, again, why is it so important to Neil young to improve that audio quality of music? Well, you know, he works so hard in the studio to create the content creators is music. And what he found is when he listens to it as we do, uh, it's just terrible. It's compressed. It doesn't sound like he, I've heard it hurts his ears. He said he can recognize the song, but he can hear the music. So, I mean, does the average person though then really hear the difference between a lower quality music file and a higher quality music file?
Speaker 1: 02:37 That's a great question and that's been debated for four eons, but I'm convinced and he's convinced that you can hear it and over time you hear it even more. It's sort of like the first time you drink a glass of wine, you don't know the different qualities, but as you mature and as you get more experienced, you then start to identify the subtleties. And it's the same with music. I've seen it myself, I've seen my wife who is a musician, listened to bad music and good music, the same song, and you hear lots of things that you miss. Otherwise things like the, that tonality of a plucked string or the ping of a triangle, you hear the, the subtleties, the reverberations, the echoes. So absolutely everybody can hear it w over time, some sooner than others. So it's almost like it becomes an acquired taste.
Speaker 1: 03:32 It is, but music is that way. Music is so important that there today there's no reason why not to give people everything that's in the original recording as opposed to 5% or 10% in, in what has been going on. 90% of the music has been pretty much thrown away the data so you can recognize the song, but it's just not very compelling and you don't feel the music, hence the title brain still. So will our current audio equipment, like our car speakers be able to play this higher quality audio, better quality music will sound better over pretty much everything. But Neil's contention and our contention in the book is that if you don't have the good content, nobody has got to develop the phones and the devices to hear them. And so that's been the problem. That hasn't been the high quality. So therefore our phones are pretty much incapable of, of playing the a as good as they can.
Speaker 1: 04:36 So you have to start somewhere and styling with the music is what is so important and that, and that happened yesterday. You know, you're an engineer by trade and met Neil young when he reached out to you to, to help and develop the opponent player. Tell us what that is. Neil's first attempt to bring quality music to his fans was to develop a, basically a iPod on steroids. It was essentially a music player, but it didn't play the compressed music that the iPod did. It played the original file. And the idea was to be able to create a device that was affordable and to be able to create a music store where people could get only the highest quality music, put the two together and listened to what he heard when he did his original recording. It really sounds like the Pono player was a victim of bad timing.
Speaker 1: 05:32 It was a victim of bad timing and, uh, some bad management in the company. And we tell that whole story, uh, all the warts. And what happened was people were really moving towards screaming. Uh, this was 2012. Streaming was a great solution for the music industry because it was a way for them to finally make money. And it enabled us, the consumer to quickly access all the music files in the world with just a pushing a button or a little search. So it was really convenient. But when the industry went to streaming, it was another degradation of music quality. So it made music even worse. They'll tell me about how you guys pivoted. Well, we're at the end of Pono. When we ended up having to close down the company and I sat with Neil, I thought he'd be, you know, upset or he'd just want to give up and move onto something else.
Speaker 1: 06:34 And his reaction was, was amazing. He said, no, I hope Pono would be the end. But as it turned out, it was just the beginning. And if people want streaming, we're going to have to find a solution and give them high quality streaming. And around that time, technology was advancing. Our cellular was working fast and memory costs were cheaper. And so we worked with it. We found a little company in Singapore and uh, together we worked out a solution where Neil was able to put all of his music online on a website called Neil young archives and people could go on and listen to the music conveniently as streamed music, but it was at the highest quality possible. And he did it only with his music because that's the only music he had available to do this with. But he made it available. And uh, people can go on and listen for free for select music or if they want to join, they can pay $20 a year and have access to everything he's ever produced.
Speaker 1: 07:41 And they're at Neil Young, archives.com people can put their, their own ear to the tasks that, tell me about that. So you have a website and there's an app for android and for Apple Ios and you can listen to music and you can actually change the delivery speed, changed the quality with a little, uh, switch on the app. And you can listen now as you pointed to earlier. All phones won't sound great with this music. The music, the high quality music will play on any device, but it'll be essentially compromised by the device you're listening to. But today there are some phones that are, have come out that will play high, high definition music, high quality music. LG makes a couple of phones that do it and we think other companies will follow. And if your phone doesn't do that, you can add a couple of little adapters to the bottom of your phone and you can listen and high quality.
Speaker 1: 08:41 And what made you want to write a book about this journey from Pono player to streaming service with Neil Young? Well, you know, about a year ago, um, I saw Neil getting all sorts of criticism. People were making fun of him about what he was doing and his cause and they said no one really cares anymore. And they were accusing him of trying to do this to make money. Like just because, you know, he was, uh, you know, eccentric and I s and I was there. I was in the room. I saw how passionate he was about this, and he told me on several occasions, Phil, this is the most important thing I've ever done in my life. It's so important to get high quality music out there because not only is it about my music, but the music that's in the archives and music has that's been recorded over the last 50 years is sitting on tape.
Speaker 1: 09:37 And that tape is degrading. And, and those tapes may burn in a fire as, as we recently read about. And I want high quality digital music to, to be prevalent so that everyone will go back and we called the old music on the tapes before those tapes disappear. And so people, generations from now, we'll be able to access all the great music of our times and the highest quality possible at is fascinating. I've been speaking to Phil Baker, who pell out there to feel the music with Neil Young. Phil, thank you so much. They could, jade, it's great to be here.
Speaker 2: 10:30 [inaudible].